Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anya Schiffrin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anya Schiffrin was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.
Not really all that notable...I guess there are thousands of adjunct professrs out there who haven't done anything really encyclopedia-worthy in their life. The text is copied from [1], to boot, although that's an .edu site so I'm not sure about the copyright status -- Ferkelparade π 13:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Terminate, with extreme prejudice. I've always wanted to say that. Alphax (talk) 14:03, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Adjunct professors are the salt mine workers of academia. It means that you have a degree and are willing to be taken advantage of for a year, or that you are very naive and believe them when they keep saying that a tenure track opportunity is opening up any minute now. Geogre 18:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're speaking from experience. Wyllium 19:34, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
- I was too cynical for it, but of my 10 best friends in grad school, 7 fell for it. Each were thoroughly convinced that they were going to get the tenure track position. None even got considered. The only friend I had who won the game had a Ph.D. from Yale in Classics and got the assistant prof. gig at U.Georgia, something he was nearly overly qualified for to begin with. Universities in the US survive by slave labor from TA's and adjuncts. Geogre 00:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable: fails the "professor test" Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies (which is often regarded as too low a bar, anyway).
Quite possibly autobiography.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) - If it were a beauty contest, I'd say keep because she is cute. But, unfortunately, it is not a beauty contest. Delete —ExplorerCDT 02:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- For now I'm saying delete, but if someone can rewrite to demonstrate notability, ping me and I'll reconsider. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and request delete voters to please reconsider. She's married to Joseph E. Stiglitz, the "Nobel Prize"-winning economist of considerable note. Almost certainly not autobiography or personal-friend vanity, but a well-meaning visitor filling in the redlink that existed from the article on her husband. Former editor-in-chief of The Turkish Times daily newspaper, co-editor of the timely book Covering Globalization (Columbia University Press) [2], globetrotting business journo and subject of nearly four thousand Google hits that seem staggeringly more heavily weighted to serious civil society, NGO, etc. as well as academic websites than almost any journalist you could imagine. Not a Nobel Prize winner, but a clearly notable and unique journalist-educator in her own right. Samaritan 04:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Being married to a Nobel Laureate does not a notable person make...neither does writing one book (timely or not) when seen through the eye of the professor test. This is a case of notability by association—that someone is automatically famous because they are related, know, or stole the underwear of someone who was famous. Next we'll be claiming folks are notable because they somehow hook up through the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon... um... I mean...um "separation"...or they knew someone who knew someone who stole some famous person's underwear. —ExplorerCDT 05:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing notability by association per se, was I? I was arguing against dismissing the article as vanity or autobiography, and then I was arguing precisely the grounds on which Dr Zen voted to keep below. Though if I was arguing notability by association, I'd have a great number of well-accepted notable-by-association Wikipedia articles I could point to. And equating marriage with knowing someone who knew someone, etc. is a silly slippery slope argument that doesn't give us any credit for discernment whatsoever. Samaritan 05:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You are right about it not being a case of autobiography. The IP that started the article (152.130.15.14) came from the Department of Veterans Affairs in D.C. But it's not slippery slope, it's more a reductio ad absurdam.—ExplorerCDT 05:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing notability by association per se, was I? I was arguing against dismissing the article as vanity or autobiography, and then I was arguing precisely the grounds on which Dr Zen voted to keep below. Though if I was arguing notability by association, I'd have a great number of well-accepted notable-by-association Wikipedia articles I could point to. And equating marriage with knowing someone who knew someone, etc. is a silly slippery slope argument that doesn't give us any credit for discernment whatsoever. Samaritan 05:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Being married to a Nobel Laureate does not a notable person make...neither does writing one book (timely or not) when seen through the eye of the professor test. This is a case of notability by association—that someone is automatically famous because they are related, know, or stole the underwear of someone who was famous. Next we'll be claiming folks are notable because they somehow hook up through the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon... um... I mean...um "separation"...or they knew someone who knew someone who stole some famous person's underwear. —ExplorerCDT 05:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes the "editor test". If she were a computer scientist, there'd be no question of deleting this page. A distinguished journalist with a verifiable track record.Dr Zen 05:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Depends on how much circulation the Turkish Times has, and whether as an academic her book passed the 1000-copies-sold mark, much less 5000.—ExplorerCDT 05:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I did not think it had a greater circulation than 5000. Her book is brand new. Check it out. It's not some b/s thing about ancient Etruscan pottery. It'll be used and cited. MMFW.Dr Zen 05:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Having a considerable amount of knowledge on publishing and academia, I can say with substantial authority that it is extremely rare for any academic text to break 1000 copies sold. Even the Chronicle of Higher Education said a well written monograph might get purchased by up to 700 or 800 of the author's colleagues nationwide. I'd bet Columbia only printed a first run of 1500-2000 copies (that I will check tomorrow). That's why it is $34.50 for paperback, $69.50 clothbound. And it's a reader. Readers don't sell in volumes like Herbert Marcuse saw for One-Dimensional Man (which made Beacon a major press, by the way). There are so many books published (especially on the topic of globalization) today that this book (despite its potential merits) would require a rather loud voice crying out from the wilderness to get picked up in classrooms (where the money is). But with a lot of international studies profs writing books, and they would probably assign their own. Only time will tell, but 5,000 copies is a holy grail for academia...one rarely reached, and often missed by quite a distance. —ExplorerCDT 05:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- She should certainly have gone to Rutgers rather than marry Stiglitz, eh? Yes, there are lots of books on globalisation, but not all that many for journos and even fewer for journos by Stiglitz's wife. Fame sells and so does fame by association. Anyway, this is a preposterous argument. If the book was called Quantum Electrodynamics for Journalists, we wouldn't be having this vote.Dr Zen 06:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Trying to take a swipe at my alma mater, eh? Definitely not cool.
- This debate is preposterous because you make her out to be a some sort of bestseller as if she were Chomsky, or Tom Friedman. She's not. Heck, she didn't even write much of the book. It's yet another reader. She is just another average academic pushing out an edited work, and her co-editor is a hedge fund manager. Big deal...as if that dynamic duo would make a significant, noteworthy impact on the world of international economics. —ExplorerCDT 06:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not taking a swipe at anything. Just poking fun at you because you write articles about profs from your alma mater and here you are trying to strike out a prof from a rival. See? Just fun. Look. I think you have the wrong end of the stick. You haven't even got straight what subject she is a professor in. Not economics. Journalism. I recognise her name. Vaguely. She has a fairly distinguished track record as a journo. Now she has edited a book that whether it sells 5000 or no will most likely appeal to journos with too much time on their hands or students of journalism. She's not Chomsky. Right. But this encyclopaedia has room for all the metro stations in Hong Kong; individual episodes of Dr Who; and any and all mathcruft and physicruft. There was an article on undelete about a passing idea of Freeman Dyson and not even the suggestion of merging it! If I start thinking about the Lord of the rings nonsense and its kindred stuff I'm liable to need tying down. Journalism professors are arguably not as notable as maths professors but still, I think there's a case for her and the presumption is always to keep.Dr Zen 06:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- She should certainly have gone to Rutgers rather than marry Stiglitz, eh? Yes, there are lots of books on globalisation, but not all that many for journos and even fewer for journos by Stiglitz's wife. Fame sells and so does fame by association. Anyway, this is a preposterous argument. If the book was called Quantum Electrodynamics for Journalists, we wouldn't be having this vote.Dr Zen 06:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Having a considerable amount of knowledge on publishing and academia, I can say with substantial authority that it is extremely rare for any academic text to break 1000 copies sold. Even the Chronicle of Higher Education said a well written monograph might get purchased by up to 700 or 800 of the author's colleagues nationwide. I'd bet Columbia only printed a first run of 1500-2000 copies (that I will check tomorrow). That's why it is $34.50 for paperback, $69.50 clothbound. And it's a reader. Readers don't sell in volumes like Herbert Marcuse saw for One-Dimensional Man (which made Beacon a major press, by the way). There are so many books published (especially on the topic of globalization) today that this book (despite its potential merits) would require a rather loud voice crying out from the wilderness to get picked up in classrooms (where the money is). But with a lot of international studies profs writing books, and they would probably assign their own. Only time will tell, but 5,000 copies is a holy grail for academia...one rarely reached, and often missed by quite a distance. —ExplorerCDT 05:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I did not think it had a greater circulation than 5000. Her book is brand new. Check it out. It's not some b/s thing about ancient Etruscan pottery. It'll be used and cited. MMFW.Dr Zen 05:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Depends on how much circulation the Turkish Times has, and whether as an academic her book passed the 1000-copies-sold mark, much less 5000.—ExplorerCDT 05:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It is not the only thing I'm working on. Just a project that has a lot of redlinks, so I'm somewhat inspired. And ironically, when I learn who half these red links are (because many of those on the article predate me), I'll probably delete half of them as inconsequential.
- So, I could care less what happens at Columbia. But, I will say that there are too many separate Columbia University School of this and that articles, and that needs to be fixed with deletions and redirects.
- However, you really must be deluded or blind because I have never in the course of this topic made any statements discussing what Schiffrin is an adjunct of at Columbia, or her professional background. While I could care less, I know well enough she's a journalist. The only reason I mentioned "international economics" is because that is what the crux of her reader is about...dumbing down the massive economic phenomenon of globalization so her former colleagues know how to talk about it to the even dumber folks who buy the newspapers. Did you even look at the book's page at the Columbia University Press link posted above? Or do you always make assumptions and talk out of your posterior?
- Mathcruft, I know practically nothing of. I know there are a lot of math articles, but it isn't my area of expertise. So, it would be wrong of me to intercede there. As for the fancruft, I've stood out against that from the beginning. If you see my record with VfD, I am consistent in that regard. There is a lot of junk on Wikipedia that belongs on a personal website some schmuck builds to satisfy his dilletante fetish—be it metro stations, episodes of the Golden Girls or Lord of the Rings. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of that junk. However, Rome wasn't built in a day and there are at least another 100,000 articles to recommend after I get done with the 40 or 50 I've recommended thus far.—ExplorerCDT 07:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Yes, of course I read the website, regardless which end of me does the talking. You suggested something about making an impact on the world of international economics. But, as you note, Ms Schiffrin is contenting herself with making that worthy subject digestible for journalists (of which of course she is one, not an economist and with no pretensions to being one), an endeavour that has met your disapproval, but, frankly, if you knew journos like I do, perhaps you would feel differently. Someone has to chew their food for them. Anyway, thanks for the time you have taken to explain your position. It's a pity that I have not been able to sway you an inch from your lofty dismissal of this poor soul. Best of luck with your crusade.Dr Zen 08:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Keep Notable enough for inclusion. The Steve 08:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as she is verifiably notable. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. zoney ♣ talk 18:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
